We have reduced support for legacy browsers.

What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.

What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.

Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »

“We must not demean life by standing in awe of death.”
I once valued life, but what use is life if you cannot live to your full potential? A pointless effort to say the least.
So very few people ever are remembered in the history books… regretfully.

Ah I’ll bite. I love Mark Twain but I cannot say this one really speaks to me. I read that he is suggesting that respect, success, what have you, is more important to man then love. That more then love he seeks to elevate himself over his peers.
I would say generally speaking he is quite right.

This one didn’t get much, I’ll just mvoe on to a new one. This was suggested by TheInternetRules.
“Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the only antidote to shame.”
* * *
By the way, does anyone know who the real world person who said this is?

> *Originally posted by **[Dartval](/forums/9/topics/259493?page=32#posts-7005746):***
>
> New quote:
>
> “Man will do many things to get himself loved, he will do all things to get himself envied.”
>
> ~Mark Twain
.
> *Originally posted by **[Ungeziefer](/forums/9/topics/259493?page=32#posts-7015256):***
>
> Ah I’ll bite. I love Mark Twain but I cannot say this one really speaks to me. I read that he is suggesting that respect, success, what have you, is more important to man then love. That more then love he seeks to elevate himself over his peers.
>
>
>
> I would say generally speaking he is quite right.Yeah, I agree w/ Ung in that this quote was a little difficult for me to wrap MY mind around. This is because I’m much more comfortable w/ being loved than being envied.
Love is more likely to be a “two-way street” kind of thing…usually reciprocal because of some deeply shared interests.
Envy can be generated by all manner of reasons that all too often aren’t accurate or from a source that can be difficult to be “appreciated”. Sometimes, envy both elevates one party & diminishes the other because of this.
NOW:
> *Originally posted by **[Dartval](/forums/9/topics/259493?page=32#posts-7015361):***
>
> This one didn’t get much, I’ll just move on to a new one.I’m sorry, Dartval…I just somehow missed your updates.> This was suggested by TheInternetRules.
>
> “Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the only antidote to shame.”
Sure.
Since pride (I’m assuming SELF-pride is the kind referred to here) is generated by self,,,
there is a huge chance for it to be overly done.
And yes, the salvation for such a deed is to “shrink that ego” via an action called humility.
But, and a little off-topic here…wouldn’t the pride for someone that is felt by another be the antithesis of envy….somewhat?
.
> *Originally posted by **[Dartval](/forums/9/topics/259493?page=32#posts-7019605):***
>
> Two quotes in a row got nothing. Let’s try a new one.
>
>
> “When men sow the wind it is rational to expect that they will reap the whirlwind.”
>
> ~Frederick Douglass
Hmmmm….
I’m guessing that Douglass intent here is that a whirlwind is a negative thing.
And, I’m guessing that WIND is used in the metaphor because it is something not easily controlled.
So, I guess if one tosses his chickens to the wind,
they may indeed come home to roost,,,
in a 20-piece bucket.
But, I see a positive approach to “sowing the wind”.
On a wing & a prayer.
The "wind"fall of a risky investment.
Cast your fate into the wind.
Go where the winds of life take you.
You are the wind beneath my wings.
But then, I see my beer mug as being half full…
and a buxom barmaid on her way to top it off.
LOL

> *Originally posted by **[Dartval](/forums/9/topics/259493?page=32#posts-7019605):***
>
> Two quotes in a row got nothing. Let’s try a new one.
>
> “When men sow the wind it is rational to expect that they will reap the whirlwind.”
>
> ~Frederick Douglass
The idea of sowing and reaping to let it grow from a seed, like a plant. Of course, what’s more powerful than wind? A whirlwind. Could be taken as former mischief coming back to bite the person.

Alright, this might be fun. “When men sow the wind it is rational to expect that they will reap the whirlwind.” Well, this can have many interpretations, but I think it’s pretty much enforcing karma in a negative sort of connotation. What a great quote.

“She walked across the room. She stepped upon her left foot, her right foot, and then her left foot again. One wonders, why doth she, in this instance of walking across the room, begin her journey upon the left foot and not the right? Could it be her terrible sin, that the devil informeth the left foot just as he informeth the left hand and those bewitched, left-handed persons amongst us? Why, forsooth, doth the left foot of sin draggeth the innocent right foot along its wretched journey from one side of the room to the other? She walked across the room, I tell you! Guilty feet hath got no rhythm…”

Many quotes are too vague to leave their own context. For example, Ferdinand Foch, a French general, said this after the Treaty f Versailles: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.” He didn’t mean to say the treaty is too harsh, but rather, not harsh enough. Quotes are ambiguous enough.
But doing away the context of this quote and looking at the sentence itself, the word “religion” immediately springs into mind. A strong impression of something fuzzy, it is religion. As a fuzzy concept, religion can’t pass the trial of rationality, but you definitely miss something if you require rationality in all fields.

Pretty basic:
How much folly is it to assume something that is without good definition (maybe as in high resolution of a picture) can be acutely described (as in expecting to have a picture that isn’t “fuzzy”//out-of-focus)?
This quote somewhat reminds me of the story of [the 5 blind men & the elephant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant)
Sure, each man upon touching a specific part of the elephant felt very strongly that he was highly accurate in his comparative assessment of that part of the elephant which was in his hands. But, obviously…what made the “picture be a fuzzy one” was the fact that each one of them were failing to see the ENTIRE picture.
This is what I see happening all around me,,,,
and usually at the heart of most stressful contentions.
Some ppl believe that just because they are well versed on a subject, esp. if in only a small aspect of it, then they by default automatically know the balance of any pertinent, worth-knowing data.
We see this in jhco’s “anecdotal-expansion theory”.
We see it in his: agree w/ me or you hate America & want to destroy the Constitution.
We see it manifested in his bigoted stances on abortion, Gay Rights, etc.
Of course he has HIS RIGHT to believe as he wishes and by which he divines same.
He even has a “right” to do his best to see those wishes actualized,,,
at least as long as society (via laws, etc.) will allow.
BUT, he also should expect other ppl’s imagery//concept of the “elephant” to be different from his (and even likely different from the real elephant),,, and be able to give due respect to theirs as he believes is “owed” to him.
I really, REALLY like how Pulsaris brought up the analogy of “religion”.
It fits perfectly.
The quote so blatantly describes what is a major problem w/ “religion” today.
That being: petty ppl,,, wanting to have much more clout in life than they merit,,,taking something that is very “fuzzy” and then going to extreeeeeme lengths to give enormous credibility to it via honing a razor sharp image of what “God” says he wants.
Of course, and by-the-way, they know this because “God” whispered it in their ears….such is their desperation to take something that not only IS fuzzy, but should REMAIN fuzzy so that each person can actually “hear” their God speaking to THEM instead of these self-appointed charlatans-of-spiritual-clarity.
These are the ppl (& their followers) that not only can’t see the forest because of the trees,,,
they are the ones who believe they are seeing THE forest simply because they can (maybe?) identify the very few trees within their sight of the glen in which they reside.
A very good quote to bring up in these troubling times, Dartval.
I intend to use it during “discussion” of why we are now in Civil War II.
I used the metaphor of _high resolution of a picture_ because A. Adams was a renowned photographer.

“There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.”
Trying to pinpoint a matter on hand on a fuzzy target fails to show the full meaning, for the sharp image has but a limited view of all of the alterations of the probability. One concept of “god” has lead to many religions, even atheism, for such a blurry concept has many points to focus on, such as a human from a god, a god creating the world, or even what a god is. A broad subject has many points to it, some on the opposite sides. Even the fuzzy concepts are themselves sharp images of their child subjects. The heart is within the category of medical, blood is in the category heart, rituals are within the category of blood, and health is within the category rituals. While some may not agree to this, this could be visualized as each subject in the world as a point on a gray, blurry disc. In those discs are viewpoints on their subjects, from afar look sharp but look blurry up close. But within those are more discs, and eventually you get to the start. The process of learning is to get to the center of those discs, where there are no lies or opposing areas, just the center. And when everything is in the center of one another, everything will be revealed in life, until someone wants to make a disc somewhere not in the center…

> There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.
Whilst undoubtedly not what the original quoter had in mind, this is definitely true in the more bleeding edge of discovery. It is likely just as true for theoretical work as it is for applied sciences.
When you have a vague area which is poorly understood – let’s pick the concept of ‘continental drift’ as an example, before the field of plate tectonics was widely accepted – before this explanation was even widely accepted. You had a great unknown expanse, in which something was clearly happening, but nobody knew why.
You then had individuals come along and ‘lay down the law’ of how this mechanism worked, without fully understanding all the details involved. As such you get communities or cliques all grouping around a common idea, which is a clear and precise way things _must_ be working. Very clear and definite despite the whole concept being rather fuzzy and indistinct.
Then when a correct explanation does come along – plate tectonics in this case – it has to fight for momentum against the established clear ideas. In our example’s case, the debate surrounding it versus other ‘more accepted’ explanations raged on for sixty years before plate tectonics won out, basically by supplying many, many times as much evidence as the other ‘sharp images of what was going on’ had needed, in order to be accepted.
You see this phenomenon all the time in various branches of human work. Where an idea becomes so accepted, even though it is not accounting for all the possibilities, that it takes a great deal of oomph for other, newer ideas with less crispness to them – more room to maneuver – to get past that.
Most minds on this forum will probably turn to either politics or religion, but mainstream science can be just as bad. About the only difference with science is the lifecycle is much, much shorter.
But a sharp image of a fuzzy concept is horendous precisely because, in order to bring it into focus, to make it sharp, so much of the concept has to be ignored, or quietly brushed aside. You have a solution, yes, but it is a solution which must by necessity of having such sharpness, ignore most of what is actually going on in the whole image, to focus only on some small, highly visible segment of it.

> *Originally posted by **[Dartval](/forums/9/topics/259493?page=32#posts-7071673):***
>
> New quote:
>
> “The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult.”
>
> ~Winston Churchill
Not really my best effort on this one,,,
but I also haven’t given it much thought,,,
very busy ATM.
Rather the person left standing is on the defeat or victory side of the war (Churchill was likely referring to WWII), s/he “inherits” the ugly aftermath of it…the problems which remain to be solved//addressed. The “agreeable” part for the victors is that they are the ones in charge of who does the work & “pays” the most for the need to have it done.

The aftermath of victory are arguably more noticeable than that of defeat, but none-the-less, there are difficulties.
For example,
If X doesn’t attack Y at Z, X’s army will lose 5,000 men and Y would suffer minimal casualties
If X _does_ attack Y at Z, Y will fall, lose 10,000 men, X only losing ~400-600
As seen, no matter how X or Y approach each other, no matter who wins, the difficulties (death) will still be there.

well, i’d rather say he’s cautioning about thinking victory means you can relax in a hammock and food will come to you. you still have the same problems of having to rebuild and reorganise, count your losses, watch your back…it’s not much different. it doesn’t get you out of the woods, it just makes the woods less eery. although actually, he said it far more directly than that.

Look at Vietnam and Iran. In Vietnam, the initial loss of life was atrocious and the US lost. In Iraq the US “won” but they had to rebuild and establish stable gouvernement over a long periode of time. In both situations, the wars had large negative consequences and very few positive ones, hence there is a small différence in total between losing and winning

I’ve gotten kind of lazy, but I’m going to try to bring this thread back since it was popular.
* * *
New quote to reboot the thread:
“Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.”
~Pablo Picasso